Talk:Heaven/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Atheist view II

Once again, the purpose of the section is not to create a list of people who have proclaimed themselves to be atheist. The purpose it to quote people who espouse a particular point of view. A person does not need to be full-blown atheist in order to share the atheistic view of heaven. You reasoning behind deleting this information is highly irrational. What you are doing here is similar to saying that the page on communism can only include quotes from people who have registered with the communist party. I could easily find quotes from socialist/democrats/liberals/etc who might agree with Marx on a particular point. By your logic, these should be deleted. And that is completely illogical.

And BTW... Just for the record... About.com lists Gibbon as an Agnostic/Atheist. [1] But as I said, this is largely irrelevant since it is clear from the quote that Gibbon is talking about Roman religions. Gibbon did not believe in Roman mythology, and therefore takes an atheistic position towards their gods and their beliefs.

Since you seem to be so interested in maintaining the accuracy in integrity of this particular article, I will strive to aid you in this endeavor by applying the same standard to the rest of the article that you wish to apply to this one particular section. I'm sure you will agree that it is the only fair thing to do. And hopefully together we can make this the greatest article Wikipedia has ever seen. There are quite a few unsourced statments in the article that appear to be O.R. Big Brother 1984 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read WP:SYNT, but that is exactly what you are doing in that section, unless you can quote a source that has made the same point that you seem to be pushing; you are drawing a novel conclusion, exactly like the example on the policy page... This isn't the appropriate place to do your own research, or write an essay on how the "atheist view of Heaven" was specifically formulated by Gibbon and Orwell, unless there is some other published source in the world that makes this point about Gibbon and Orwell. Also the comments in your last paragraph make it clear that the sprinkling of gratuitous fact tags throughout the article is motivated by bad faith because of your efforts to expand the atheism section being reverted, so these tags should probably mostly be removed as begging the question. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am quoting other people directly in this article is to minimize the possibility of being criticized of OR. Now it seems that you are attempting to use my use of quotations as a justification for reverts. Perhaps you should read Help:Reverting. You cannot continuously delete my edits just because you don't like them. Reverts should generally only be used to combat vandalism, not to delete things you don’t personally agree with. Such behavior can lead to unnecessary revert wars.

Your last deletion was, once again, completely unwarranted. The line in question clearly states that Gibbon was applying his criticism to a religion (paganism) that wasn't his own. The line said, The 18th century historian Edward Gibbon applied this view in reference to the pagan religions of antiquity when he wrote, "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful".[2] I'm not sure how you can view this as "Synthesis" since it explicitly describes which religion was the target of the criticism. I am not joining the two quotes in the article in order to reach a logical conclusion. The Emma Goldman quote was about religion in general, and the second was about “pagan” religions. The reason they are both listed is because they are both examples of people criticizing religion as a tool of the state. Just because the two quotes are related does not mean that I am trying to blend these two together to reach a conclusion that could be considered O.R. I'm am not saying If A and B, therefore C. There is no "therefore C" anywhere in the paragraph, so I really have to wonder how you can even try to level such a complaint. The paragraph says here is "Criticism A", and here are two examples of this view, with the context of the statements clearly described.

And as for the "gratuitous sprinkling" of tags, I think you can see that all of the lines I tagged are deserving of review. I'm just surprised that you never noticed these problems before, since you seem to keep such a close watch on the content of this article. But please observe that I didn't just run through the article willy-nilly and delete everything I didn't like. I am a firm believer in citing sources, and I am a little dismayed by the fact that the small section I created has more than twice as many references than the rest of the entire article. Big Brother 1984 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it you still have not read WP:SYNT yet. If you had, you would know that the deletion is justified, because as far as we know, you are the first person in the world to string together quotes from George Orwell, Edward Gibbon (neither of whom were known to be atheists) and others in order to push a particular point of view or conclusion, as well as to develop a "theology" if you like for atheism. If some published source has ever done this, please cite it. Otherwise it is precisely what Wikipedia refers to as "novel synthesis". Again, read WP:SYNT carefully. I am not deleting it because I "do not like it", if I could do that I would delte the entire thing. The ridiculously weak argument implying it is somehow wrong to seek eternal reward could be easily refuted by Biblical texts, that state that Satan uses this same argument. But you have cited an actual atheist who makes the argument, so it can stay, and actually it makes atheists look ridiculous to anyone who has read the Bible to have it included. Your general hostility toward this article subject and your sarcastic tone above are also noted, and it is my opinion that you are no neutral editor, but only here to preach your own particular viewpoints and to deliberately sow tares in existing belief-systems, but Wikipedia is not at all supposed to be for pushing your own POV and fighting wars against people who believe differently from you. Here at wikipedia, your best policy is to just stick to sourcing what can be sourced neutrally, and save all the attacks on faith and religion for some other website.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:SYNT yourself. It is a policy against taking two unrelated statements and blending them together to reach an original conclusion that can be construed as OR. The paragraph in question does no such thing. I am merely listing a few examples of people who have accused states of using religion towards political ends. This is not OR. The purpose and intended targets of their statements are clear. They are all separate instances, and do not rely on one another to draw a conclusion. I think you need to learn what a logical argument is before you can accuse me of falsely fabricating one.

Again, I ask you to specifically state the logical conclusion you think that I am trying to "synthesize". In order to synthesize and argument (as per WP:SYNT), one statement would have to rely on another, and then a logical conclusion would have to rest upon the joining of the two prior statements. No such thing is occurring here. It isn't even close. As I said, there is no "therefore C". I am not saying, "Goldman said 'A', Gibbon said 'B', and therefore 'C'". The point of the paragraph is that some have accused people in power of using the promise of a post-mortem reward in order to suit their own ends. I am then saying that Goldman said this about "religion", and that Gibbon said something similar in reference to "pagan" religions. I have heard these quotes cited by prominent atheists, therefore it is not “OR” . (i.e. The Gibbon quote was cited by atheist Steven Weinberg in a BBC interview[3])

"The ridiculously weak argument implying it is somehow wrong to seek eternal reward could be easily refuted by Biblical texts..."

I don't even know what to say to that. I would love to have a philosophical discussion with you here, but I won’t. This is not the place. Your personal views here are irrelevant. The section in question is on the Atheist view of heaven, not the theist view of the atheist view on heaven. I am not pushing the atheist view here any more than the other religions here can be said to be pushing their view. This article is full of various POVs, and that is how it should be. You are obviously not an atheist, so I'm not sure why you have taken it upon yourself to act as the final editor of this section. You have already reverted my edits 9 times, in addition to making several other edits of your own. This behavior is not appropriate, and might easily be viewed as an "attack" by the person you are harassing with reverts. You really should take a good look at Help:Reverting (specifically, the section on When to revert). - 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Big Brother 1984

Reverting Original synthesis again. Your purpose on this article seems to be to provoke confrontation and contention, and so far you have been quite successful at that. I will be more than happy to revert your contentious and confrontational edits as long as necessary until we can get some arbitration on the matter. You seem to think the purpose of Wikipedia is to push your own POV on others by any means necessary. Half of the authors quoted in your novel synthesis on atheism were not atheists, or never claimed to be atheists or speaking on behalf of atheism, so you are clearly putting words in their mouths. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The purpose of my section is to give brief summary of the modern rationalist view towards the ancient belief of the afterlife. Such a view has every right to be present as the mythological beliefs of ancient Jews, Arabs, or Polynesians. By your practice of continual reversion, you are making it clear that you don't think that this view should be present in the article. Perhaps you can explain to me how censorship of an opposing viewpoint can be considered to be in line with maintaining an NPOV. All articles which describe a potentially debatable subject should include all reasonable viewpoints in order to maintain a NPOV.

Even though you have made it clear that you do not like this section because you view it as an "attack" on your theist sensibilities, you still seem to be maintaining that you rationale behind the deletion is due to a violation of WP:SYNT. I have asked you to explain how you have come to rather odd conclusion, and instead your response was to revert the entire article. The accusation of WP:SYNT is completely unwarranted. WP:SYNT is not a prohibition against collecting similar viewpoints in an article, as you would seem to be claiming. It is a prohibition against stringing together various unrelated facts to develop an original conclusion that could be construed as OR. The premise that religion can be used as a method of population control is certainly not an original position. And citing a couple examples of people who held this belief towards one religion or another is not a violation of WP:SYNT. If it were, a great many Wikipedia articles would be in need of revision.

The only clear violation of policy here is that of Help:Reverting, since you have now reverted my edits 10 times for rather frivolous reasons. I am not a big fan of summoning the powers of admins to resolve disputes, but if you continue reverting sections without explaining your reasons there may be little recourse left available to us. But for now I will assume good faith and attempt to explain very clearly why this section is not violation of WP:SYNT.

Take a look at the example given in the WP:SYNT article. The logical argument might be summarized as follows...

1) Smith accuses Jones of plagiarism.
2) Jones says that he didn't take other people idea's, only their references.
3) The Chicago Manual of Style does not describe "references stealing" as plagiarism.
4) Therefore jones is not guilty of plagiarism.

The article describes this as OR since the Wikipedia author who wrote this was stringing together a logical argument on his own in order to reach an original conclusion. The article then goes on the say that if some other published writer had made such an argument it could be included in the article since it would no longer be OR.

So you see, there are two things necessary for a section to be in violation of WP:SYNT:

A) A logical argument.
B) The argument must be un-sourced OR.

Concerning "A"... take a look at the example argument cited above. It is a logical argument because if you were to remove any part of it would lose its logical coherence. I challenge you to demonstrate how my article falls into this category. If you would give it a try, you would see that your "logical argument" looks something like this...

1) Goldman viewed religion as an opiate of the masses.
2) Gibbon Stated that roman leaders used religion towards their own ends.
3) Orwell saw the promise of heaven as an imaginary carrot dangled in front of workers to motivate them to obedience and contentment.
4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster religion has an extremely silly description of heaven in order to make a point.
5) Therefore.... ????

I hope you can see that this is not a logical argument. It is a collection of similar viewpoints. I have attempted to include a variety of different viewpoints in the interest of NPOV, but this is by no means an attempt to state that they all believe the exact same thing and all possess the same monolithic view on religion. Atheist and freethinkers are notorious for avoiding such a grouping. As atheists are often heard to lament, trying to organize any sort of formal atheistic organization or theology is a bit like trying to “herd cats”.

Concerning "B"... Where is the OR? Are you suggesting that I am the first person to state that religion is the "opiate of the masses"? If you wish to attribute this novel idea to me personally, I would be very much honored. But I'm afraid that it would be wrong of me to claim all the glory for myself, since to do so would clearly be an act of plagiarism (pun intended).

One last note... In the comments of your latest and greatest revert you said "Trimming for undue and disproportionate weight - atheism is an extreme minority view and does not deserve half the cites in the article". First of all, the entire article is roughly 6,540 words long. The atheism section is 611 words long. If you break out your calculator, you will see that this is less than 10% of the article. And if your complaint is about the number of citations, do I really need to remind you that reason you gave for your first revision was a lack of citations? And in any case, if your problem is truly with the citations, you could easily remove those instead of the entire article. But I should let you know that I would resist such a change since it would leave the section vulnerable to later deletion from somebody who asserted that the section was un-sourced.

And for the record, did you really just say that you deleted the section because it was too well sourced? Just when you think you’ve seen everything… - Big Brother 1984 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I will continue to revert your edits many more times until this is mediated. It is a clear case of WP:SYNT, because nobody before you as far as we know has ever tried to synthesize Gibbon with Orwell and the others into an "atheist point of view, or even state that Gibbon had anything to do with atheism. You are taking disparate comments from many authors completely out of context and forging them together into a novel synthesis to make an argument against an afterlife, and unless you show where this approach has ever been published in a reputable source, it is original reesearch. Secondly, it is disproportionate and undue weight to give so much attention to atheism in an article about Heaven, so I'm trimming the section. The purpose of the article is to describe all the different religious views of Heaven, not to fill it with criticism of the article subject. There have been many cases like this where people try to turn articles upside down with attacks on the subject, leading to filling half of them with criticisms and arguments and rebuttals and counter arguments until a subarticle is made for all the criticisms. We may have to do that here and make a subarticle dedicated to criticism of all the other religions, because it doesn't belong on this page. Atheism may be a viewpoint, but it is not that significant in terms of numbers worldwide. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed that you have now openly declared your intention for a revert war. IF that is your intention, there is little else to discuss. I have already described my position thoroughly in the comments above, and it apparent that you have chosen to ignore it. Even though I'm fairly sure that you are no longer reading any of this, I'll recap my points once more just to be clear:

1) You are accusing me of "synthesizing" various opinions on heaven to prove that it doesn't exist. I am doing no such thing. I am giving examples of people who felt that the promise of unearthly reward/punishment was used as a tool to control the actions of the living. (i.e. "The opiate of the masses") Such a position does not exclude the existence of heaven. It only states that people on Earth have used this belief to serve their own ends. And this is exactly was the authors of these quotes have tried to express, each in their own way.

2) You also have seemed to indicate that you believe my purpose in the article is to state that everybody mentioned declared themselves to be atheists -- You are saying that I am combining these quotes to "prove" that all these people absolutely denied the existence of the afterlife. Again, I am doing no such thing (Even though the case could certainly be made, that is irrelevant to this discussion) If this really was the purpose of my article, how does it help such an argument to state that Orwell wasn't a self-declared atheist, or that Gibbon was talking specifically about "pagan" religions?

3) The stated purpose of the section in question is to give examples of people who have said that the common belief in an afterlife is a tool that is used as an "opiate of the masses" by those in power. This view is not limited to atheists (as should be obvious), and it is certainly not an original conclusion. This is the common thread to all of these quotes, and this is clearly stated in the article. The other arguments that you are accusing me of "synthesizing" exist only in your own head. The article itself states no such conclusions. Furthermore, inclusion of these quotes is not OR since I can provide examples of popular self-described atheist referring specifically to these quotes in their arguments. For example, here are two examples of atheists citing the Gibbon quote –

• Atheism Tapes: Steven Weinberg – Time index 22:00
• [http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7100434305066027154%26q%3Dhistory%2Bdisbelief&docid=-7100434305066027154&ev=v&esrc=sr1&usg=AL29H22gN7nPKEGG8yPrKR8Oe1j_Fxnjfw BBC: History of Disbelief] Time index 56:55

Hmm… actually, it appears that the inspiration for Gibbon’s quote came from Seneca (a “pagan” philosopher). Would it help to resolve the issue if I quoted the Seneca version of this quote instead? It really doesn’t matter to me. The two quotes are nearly identical.

4) As I showed in my previous response, I have read WP:SYNT and have given you a very clear explanation of why it doesn't apply. Holding your breath and simply declaring by fiat that it violates this rule is not going to convince anyone, especially when I have already given a clear explanation of why it doesn't.

5) Even if we were to assume that you have a valid complain about that one paragraph, why did you delete the other two paragraphs? Additionally, as per Help:Reverting, simply because you are unsatisfied with a section, that does not give you the right to continuously delete it. If you have a complaint, discuss it. The reason for this policy is to prevent revert wars, and to prevent ill-will between editors. Which brings me to #6...

6) It is apparent that you have not read Help:Reverting, or you have simply chosen to ignore it. Please read the following...

---When to revert---

---Do's---

See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

---Dont's---

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

And on that note, I will now proceed to undo your 11th reversion. As we are quickly approaching the WP:3RR, please do not revert again until we can resolve this dispute. I understand that you don't like the atheist viewpoint on this subject, but that doesn't give you the right to delete it.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

- Big Brother 1984 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

• There are better sources than "pie in the sky" than Orwell; some of them may even use Orwell as an example.
• WP is an encyclopedia, not a collection of opinion pieces. We do not argue for (or against) the atheist view, which is what BB 1984 is doing.
• About.com's opinion of Gibbon is not a reliable source; they are a WP mirror, and collect all our old mistakes.

Regards Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

1) Concerning Orwell... I'm not sure what the issue is. I provided a citation[4] to a source that explained Orwell's use of "Sugarcandy Mountain" as...."Orwell showed how Moses's tales of a heaven called "Sugarcandy Mountain" were useful to Jones as a way of keeping the animals in order - religion gave them hopes of a better life after they died and their belief made them more willing to accept their current harsh lives.". I suppose I could have directly plagiarized this quote, but my brief one-line comment is saying the essentially the same thing.

I've run an Orwell-themed website for nearly 10 years. If I were so inclined, I could give a more in-depth description of what message Orwell was trying to convey by cartooning heaven in such ridiculous manner. But I don't think that such a digression belongs in this article. (Plus, the lengthiest discussion about Sugarcandy Mountain I have been able to find on the Internet exists on my own website. And obviously, I can't quote myself without being guilty of OR).

The reason I mentioned "Sugarcandy Mountain" from Animal Farm in the article is because it is the best fictional example I know of which clearly describes the promise of heaven being purposefully used by those in power as an "opiate of the masses". I suppose that the article doesn't absolutely need to have this reference in it, but then again, I don't see any reason why it should be specifically removed either. Plus I think it ties in well with the real-life criticism of Goldman, and the overly-fictitious satire of the Pastafarians.

2) Many articles have a "criticism of the theory" section. I agree that the wiki should not be used as a soapbox to voice any one person's POV. By in an article such as this which describes a "Theory" about which is great disagreement, the only way to maintain a NPOV is to describe each competing viewpoint in its own separate section. This article was already sub-divided into multiple such divisions before I even arrived. But the one thing that all the sections had in common is that they all supported the validity of a belief in heaven.

In the "Atheist" section I added, I suppose that I could have quoted people who argue against the existence of heaven in order to balance the POV of the article. But atheist arguments are rarely concerned with "disproving" the existence of heaven (since there is really no good way to "prove a negative"). When atheists do discuss heaven, they generally talk about the effect of such a belief on society as a whole. I included three of common arguments in the article, which are:

1) The "opiate of the masses" view.
2) They think that there are better reasons to be nice to your fellow man than believing that an invisible man will reward you for it.
3) The belief that you are immortal makes it easier for you to martyr yourself in order to please your deity.

In the article, I never state that any of these claims are true or that their opinion is better than any other view... I am merely saying this person said this and this person said that, which as far as I know is the best way to describe a POV in a neutral manner.

3) Gibbon. I only cited the about.com article here in the talk page to show that some people might call him an agnostic. I didn’t add this to the article itself because Gibbon's status as an atheist wasn't being discussed. It is well-known that nobody who lived in the early 18th century described themselves as an atheist. The Blasphemy Act essentially made it against the law to declare one's self as an atheist, and such an overt act could be punishable by life imprisonment or death. People were still being sent to prison well after Gibbon lived, so even if he was an atheists he would have never said so. (The last person sent to prison was in 1921, and believe it or not, the law is still on the books... although it is no longer enforced).

It is for this reason that you will often find atheists quoting people who never publicly called themselves atheists... you really don't find many people who did so before modern times. And it is for this reason that Gibbon's status as an atheist isn't even being suggested.... he never said that he was. (And he actually professes his belief in Christianity quite often) But, whether or not Gibbon did or did not believe in the Jewish god Jehovah is irrelevant. Gibbon is not even discussing Christianity in this quote. Roman religions had some idea of an afterlife as well. One can deride Roman mythological beliefs while at the same time accepting Jewish/Christian mythology as true. Modern atheists see little difference between Roman mythology and Jewish mythology. Gibbon did not believe in the gods of Roman mythology. He is clearly an "unbeliever" in these gods. And it clearly these gods and their religions that Gibbon is talking about in the passage. And that point is explicitly mentioned.

But the reason I included his quote in the article is because modern atheists quote him (as I showed in a previous comment). The reason they quote him is because they don't constrain Gibbon's criticism merely to Roman mythology as Gibbon did, but rather to all religions. The target of the argument may be changed, but the argument itself remains unchanged when atheists invoke it.

Now that I've gone through the trouble of defending my use of the quote, I'll go ahead and remove it. ^>^ The pagan philosopher Seneca said pretty much the same thing in the 1st century CE. In fact, It seems that Gibbon may have actually plagiarized Seneca... who in turn may have plagiarized Lucretius...

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. - Edward Gibbon (1776)

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher. - Lucretius (94 BC - 49 BC)

Seneca did not believe in the pagan religions of the time, and could therefore properly be called an atheist. That should alleviate any possibility of complaint. But before I make the change I first want to find a better source for these quotes to make sure that Seneca and/or Lucretius actually wrote these words. - Big Brother 1984 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm...all 'atheism' means is that 'one who does not accept the existence of Gods or a God'. 'from a theos'; 'no' and 'God' in Ancient Greek. Whether one does or does not accept the existence of an afterlife is immaterial. So one could, by definition; believe in an afterlife and still be considered an atheist. It certainly would include all Jains and certain schools of Buddhism, who do not believe in the existence of a God or Gods. Likewise, being a theist does not neccesarily follow that accepts the existence of an afterlife. All it means, by definition, is that one accepts the existence of a (personal) God or Gods.For example, the early Jews had no concept of an afterlife at all. Einstein was a pantheist, yet did not accept the existence of an afterlife.

Of course, statistically, most atheists as a percentage would probably not accept the existence of an afterlife, and most theists would, but it is a separate matter from the question of the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods. Simply not believing in an afterlife by itself does not make one an atheist.

Put simply, if one does not believe in a God or Gods, one is an atheist. What else they believe in is irrelevant by definition. Thus, one could believe in all sorts of supernatural things, be it an afterlife, ghosts, mediums, karma, reincarnation, et cetera and if they do not believe in a God or Gods, they are; by definition, an atheist.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Atheist view on an afterlife

All 'Atheism' means by definition is 'non-belief in a God or Gods'-it has no bearing on a belief in an afterlife-one could believe in all sorts of things beside this-such as ghosts, mediums, extra-sensory-perception-and still be considered an atheist. So to say that there is a 'blanket' atheist view on an afterlife is plainly untrue.

An Atheist would seek evidence that there is a heaven or ghosts etc.....to be specific atheists is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Should talk about this at the Afterlife article not here at the religious article. I agree some may believe in an afterlife but heaven is a whole different topic because of the reward aspect of heaven.-- Moxy (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

An atheist is exactly what a theist is not-someone who does not accept the premise that a God or Gods exist. Nothing whatsoever to do with belief in anything else, and quite separate from a belief in heaven or an afterlife. An atheist does not need be 'logical' or 'rational' by definition-they simply have to believe that a God or Gods do not exist. So if one says 'I don't believe in God, but I believe in ghosts'-then they are an atheist by definition, from the greek 'a'; 'no', and 'theos'; god. Nothing whatsoever to do with a scientific or rational view of the world per se.

Jains and some schools of Buddhists; who do not accept belief in a God or Gods, could also be described; not inaccurately, as atheists

To wit: I'm not an atheist (I'm not a theist either). But I don't believe in ghosts and I have a pretty scientific, rational view of the universe. Does that make my view any less rational?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Its based in logic....most don't believe in Gods, spirits, or metaphysical life force. Since there is no life force ...it cant survive death to go to an afterlife can it? - Grace Davie; Linda Woodhead; Paul Heelas (2003). Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular, and Alternative Futures. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-7546-3010-4. -- Moxy (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Only it isn't neccesarily based on logic at all- it just means a person who does not believe in a God or Gods-and to say 'only atheism is rational' would mean that notable scientists and philosophers like Heisenberg, Einstein, Kant, Godel, David Hume, Voltaire, et cetera were not rational as regards their conclusion that a god of some kind exists (and I'm not saying I neccesarily agree with them by the way)-which, if you know anything about the beliefs of any of them, is patently nonsense.

Note the word 'most' there. Obviously, as a cross-section of society, the majority of atheists will not believe in an afterlife. But that doesn't mean all of them do, nor does it mean they cease to be an atheist by definition if they decide they believe that, say; there is an afterlife of some kind.

The definition given in the Oxford English Dictionary for 'Atheist' is:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

-and the definition given for 'atheism' is:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

-doesn't say anything else whatsoever other supernatural phenomena, reincarnation, ghosts, et cetera. All it means is, quite simply, the belief that a God or Gods do not exist.

What has 'belief in a life force' got to do with anything? People have all sorts of justifications (rational and irrational) as regards their belief in an afterlife.

Likewise, a person can be a theist (one who believes in a personal god) or a deist (one who believes in a god but not a personal one) and not believe in an afterlife: for example, the early jews didn't have any concept of an afterlife at all, and Einstein, though a believer in a (non-personal) god, was quite clear and emplicit that he did not believe in an afterlife.

oh; and never mind (and I quote you) 'most of them don't believe in gods'; none of them believe in gods or a god-that is precisely what 'atheism' means.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree however, that discussion under 'afterlife' would be more appropriate, as heaven (like, for example, reincarnation) is a specific type of afterlife.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lets show more comprehensive sources as some seem to believe that its all about religion vs a metaphysical belief-system. --

• Britannica. Encyclopaedia - "in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings" -
• Dimitrios Roussopoulos (2008). Faith in Faithlessness: An Anthology of Atheism. Black Rose Books Ltd. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-55164-312-0. Atheism, as we have seen, is a critique and a denial of the central metaphysical belief-systems of salvation involving a belief in God or spiritual beings

If by definition they don't believe in spiritual beings how can a supernatural phenomena like reincarnation let them go to heaven if they don't believe in them to begin with. -- Moxy (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. 'Atheism'-lack of belief in a God or Gods- is the opposite of theism-a belief in a personal God or Gods-it has absolutely no bearing on whether a particular theist or atheist accepts

They do not 'by definition...don't believe in spiritual beings'-that's exactly my point. All 'atheism' means by definition is 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods'. You can believe in any number of 'supernatural beings' and still by definition be an atheist. If a man does not believe in a God or Gods, but he accepts the existence of, say, ghosts-then he is still an atheist precisely because he does not believe in a God or Gods. Belief in any other phenomena-supernatural or not-is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the person believes in a God (in which case he is a theist) or not (in which case he is an atheist)

If by definition they don't believe in spiritual beings how can a supernatural phenomena like reincarnation let them go to heaven if they don't believe in them to begin with

i.They (atheists) don't neccesarily not believe in supernatural beings. ii.Only sikhs and hindus believe in reincarnation that leads them to a 'heaven'. Therefore, by definition btw, they are theists. iii. Jains -though they accept belief in reincarnation, absolutely do not believe in a God or Gods. Thus, by definition, jainism is an atheistic religion (and that also means all jains are atheists as well.) iv.You are utterly, utterly missing my point: if a man absolutely does not believe in a God or Gods, but accepts the existence of an afterlife or reincarnation, then he is still an atheist, by definition, because he does not believe in a God or Gods. That is the dictionary, official definition, regardless of what other authors may say they 'generally' believe. Likewise, most will 'generally' believe in an afterlife statistically, but a man can still be a theist and not believe in an afterlife-the early jews, for example, certainly didn't believe in a heaven or any form of afterlife-but they were still by definition theists. Likewise with atheists who believe in an afterlife-they might, percentage-wise and statistically be in the minority, but they still exist. Therefore there is not a 'blanket' atheist view on an afterlife.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It will be hard to avoid what academic sources say vs the above guess. Will let others comment.Moxy (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment about "Weasel Words"

Actually, the section on "Entry to Heaven" does not appear to me to have Weasel Words. Certainly, it does not have a lot of content; but equally certainly one cannot be saying "all religions" or "religions" in general. Maybe that banner is auto generated based on syntax -- but to me it does not appear correct in this application.108.212.92.200 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Give WP:WEASEL a read. 'Weasel words' are basically words such as 'Some religions do X' or 'Most do Y' or 'Most cars in the US have an emergency break.' There needs to be clarification to these claims, as well as citations. Ging287 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

how will earth end

Very very soon Jesus Christ will come and he will take all his believers up to the heaven and they are in the number of 1,44,000 people and the rest of the people who will remain on the earth will have to suffer from a lot of pain for 7 years,3 yrs from war and 3 yrs from a lot of pain they could not see bible and can only pray.Devil will have this earth for these 7 years and after 7 yrs jesus christ will come again and therefore all the people remained on this earth will keep their heads down in front of him.He will say I will make a new world and and I will wipe out all your tears and no pain will be given to you.So believe in jesus and pray a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.0.119 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Svarga

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Heaven. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2015.

Don't. These are two different concepts. Zezen (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Heaven. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070113162422/http://daphne.palomar.edu:80/mlane/ATHEIST/atheist_philosophy.htm to http://daphne.palomar.edu/mlane/ATHEIST/atheist_philosophy.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070516005026/http://beyondbelief2006.org:80/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%209 to http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%209
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061231212033/http://store.aetv.com:80/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75878 to http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75878

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If Heaven is a place...

Does anyone know why, in the everyday usage, Heaven is hardly ever capitalised? There are far more heavens than Heavens out there. Hell, by contrast is frequently capitalised, even though it was my understanding that you didn't capitalise hell as a mark of disrespect to the devil.--Deke42 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Deke42: I suggest you inquire over at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Baking Soda (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian views v. ancient Judaism

Under the heading "Ancient Near-East Religions: Egypt", it states "In Ancient Egyptian religion, belief in an afterlife is much more stressed than in ancient Judaism." This is a non sequitor since the religions of Ancient Egypt predate ancient Judaism by millennia, and the two were practiced on different continents. So what is the justification for comparing them in that sentence? Bricology (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Our Life Here

The thought of heaven scares some. Died and came here. Jupiter is nice, so is mars. Scared of no-one right? Well, why would we be like that, dead? So it seems it proves itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:925:71BF:1313:BFDC (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heaven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115114013/http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/animal-farm-background-info.htm to http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/animal-farm-background-info.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cherubim vs Hayyoth

What is the difference? If there is none, why include them both as separate beings in the 7° heaven? FelipeVO (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Information needs adding to the 'Postmodern views' section of the article

Information needs adding to the 'Postmodern views' section of the article as it is currently empty. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

There needs to be a section pertaining to Zoroastrianism. Peer reviewed literature and historical research indicate the prophet Zoroaster was the first man on earth to speak the existence of a heaven. This is in stark contrast to the wordage “the heavens” found in the First Testament. According to scholarly research the word heaven as it is used today was never mentioned in the First Testament.

It is vital that we provide users accurate information and not allow personal biases to dictate the content provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamshid321 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Zoroaster lived somewhere between 1500 and 500 BC, depending on who you read. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains references to a Heaven and predates him. So do references to Heaven in ancient Chinese religions. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The First Testament? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably agree there should be a section on Zoroastrianism if we could get some relevant and reliable information for it. If a reputable source demonstrably claims that Zoroaster was the first man on earth to speak of the existence of a heaven, that should be noteworthy. But I have accessed a copy of Nigosian (1993) , which was cited in an attempt to support this claim in a reverted edit to the article, and I have not been able to find any such support in it. Mrmedley (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

The article has multiple issues. There are sourcing issues that include unsourced sentences, paragraphs, and subsections. The Philosophy WikiPrioject has the article rated at B-class while eight other projects rate it a C-class and the article fails the WP:B-class criteria. #1 and #4.

Blank sections or subsections need to be deleted as serving no purpose. The "Theravada" (as well as some others) goes into too much detail thus the tag. This also allows the article to be unbalanced. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)